22. When a ruler hath sinned. A peculiar atonement is also appointed for the transgression of the rulers; and, although he speaks of the ruler in the singular number, yet inasmuch as the law was not yet enacted that one individual should bear rule, he undoubtedly designates the heads and governors generally, because they who bear rule do more injury by their bad example than private persons. If, then, any of the judges or governors had sinned through error, he might indeed be set free by a lesser victim than the priest or the whole people, yet there was individually this difference between them, that they were to offer she-goats or lambs, and the ruler a he-goat; and the object of this was that those in authority should more carefully keep themselves pure from every transgression, whereas otherwise they are wont to indulge themselves more freely, as if their rank and dignity allowed them greater license. Where we have given as our translation, “If (the sin) shall have become known,” ( si innotuerit ,) translators are not agreed. (262) The word used is properly a disjunctive particle Or; (263) but it is sometimes used for the conditional particle, as we shall see in the next chapter. Those who retain the primary and genuine meaning of the word do violence to the signification of the last word of the foregoing verse, and translate it, “shall have offended” instead of “shall have felt that he has offended;” but since it appears from many passages that או, o, is equivalent to אם , im, there is no need of wresting the words to an improper sense. The word הודע, hodang, which they render transitively “to make known,” may fitly bear my translation, unless this is preferred, “if he shall have known,” ( si cognoverit) The words which Moses continually repeats, “the priest shall make an atonement for him, and his; iniquity shall be forgiven him,” some coldly restrict to external and civil cleansing, as if Moses only removed his condemnation before men; but God rather offers pardon to sinners, and assures them that He will be favorable to them, lest fear or doubt should prevent them from freely calling upon Him. And assuredly those who do not acknowledge that the legal rites were sacraments, are not acquainted with the very rudiments of the faith. Now to all sacraments, at any rate to the common sacraments of the Church, a spiritual promise is annexed: it follows, therefore, that pardon was truly promised to the fathers, who reconciled themselves to God by the offering of sacrifices, not because the slaying of beasts expiated sins, but because it was a certain and infallible symbol, in which pious minds might acquiesce, so as to dare to come before God with tranquil confidence. In sum, as now in baptism sins are sacramentally washed away, so under the Law also the sacrifices were means of expiation, though in a different way; since baptism sets Christ before us as if He were present, whilst under the Law He was only obscurely typified. Figuratively indeed what applies to Christ only is transferred to the signs, for in Him alone was manifested to us the fulfillment of all spiritual blessings, and He at length blotted out sins by His one and perpetual sacrifice; but since the question here is not as to the value of the legal ceremonies in themselves, let it suffice that they truly testified of the grace of God, of which they were the types; and so let not that profane imagination be listened to, that the sacrifices only politically and as far as regarded men absolved those by whom they were offered from guilt and condemnation.
(262) Instead of this and the following sentences, the Fr. says, “ Les expositeurs font bien ici quelques difficultez literales, mais pource que la deduction ne serviroit rien a ceux, qui ne sont point lettrez, je les passe.” Commentators certainly make some literal difficulties here, but since the statement of them would be useless to the unlearned, I pass them by.
(263) או , Or. Noldius, in his Concord. particularum, cites instances, such as 1 Samuel 20:10, in which this conjunction is equivalent to If. אשם is that last word of Leviticus 4:22 which S.M. has rendered deliquerit ; but A. V. more happily, is guilty, הודע, says S.M., is here used for נודע, the niphal of ידע, but it is simpler to regard it as a not unusual variation of הורע, the hophal, strictly meaning, caused to become known. — W.